Epstein Secrets

2d 626 (D. N.J. 2011). 9 Watts v. Gerking, 111 Or. 641, 228 P. 135 (1924) 10 Wiggs v. Farmer, 205 Va. 149, 135 S.E.2d 829 (1964) 10 Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). 1 Young v. First State Bank, Watonga, 628 P.2d 707 (Okla. 1981). 10 OTHER AUTHORITIES Cal. Civ. Proc. Code

alleged misconduct at issue, so long as the act has some relation to the proceeding." Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla.1994); see also Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007). Fischer argues that

ing to defend their actions in a subsequent civil action for misconduct. Levin, 639 So.2d at 608 (emphasis added). The recent decision of Wolfe v. Foreman, 38 FLA. L. WEEKLY D1540 (July 17, 2013), is instructive, as it is directly on point with the facts and law presented in the case at hand. In Wolfe

elation to those proceedings, including for an action for abuse of process or malicious prosecution. Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So.2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994). The Florida Supreme Court explained the policy reasons for the litigation privilege and in so doing stated: In ba

Haddad, Tonja 8/26/2013 For Educational Use Only Wolfe v. Foreman, — So.3d — (2013) 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1540 2013 WL 3724763 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RE

occur in judicial proceedings. Myers v. Hodges, 53 Fla. 197, 44 So. 357 (1907). In Levitt, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So.2d 606, 608 (Fla.I994), the Florida Supreme Court extended the litigation privilege, already applicable to defamatory statements (slander

rocess claims filed against Epstein by the appellant, Bradley J. Edwards. The trial judge relied in part upon the then binding precedent of Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (holding that the litigation privilege applies to causes of action for malicious prosecution and abuse of process

ion privilege applied to both the abuse of process and malicious prosecution claims, and also finding that Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1994), Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007), and Wolfe provided "binding prece

han establish the fact that another trial court, just as this Court did in the case at hand, properly applied and followed the decision in Wolfe v. Foreman, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1540 (July 17, 2013). Accordingly, with no change in the law or facts since the Court's original ruling, and with Edwards simpl

action against Epstein. The Court, in applying the Florida Supreme Court binding precedent as espoused in Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994) and Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007), as well as reviewing the

issue was one for the jury. However, this Court granted summary judgment in favor of Epstein based on the litigation privilege, relying on Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So.3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). Accordingly, Final Judgment was entered in favor of Epstein. 2 EFTA00613502 Edwards appealed the summary judgm

4th DCA 2014) 2 LatAm Invests., LLC v. Holland & Knight, LLP, 88 So. 3d 240 (FIa. 3d DCA 2011) 3 Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1994) passim McCullough v. Kubiak, 4D13-4048 (Feb. 18, 2015) 9, 10 Microbilt Corporation v. Chex Systems, Inc., 2013 WL

" we are obligated to conclude that the act complained of here -- the filing of the complaint — is protected by the litigation privilege. Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67, 68 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (emphasis added). Additionally, the Wolfe decision was recently cited with approval and relied upon in Jackso

or such as the alleged misconduct at issue, so long as the act has some relation to the proceeding." Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994). As a result, if a party seeks to bring a cause of action involving acts that neither occurred during, nor had rel

cCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007), as well as reviewing the application and analysis of those cases in Wolfe v. Foreman, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1540 (July 17, 2013), is bound to conclude that all actions occurring during the course of a judicial proceeding, so long as th

la. R.Civ. P. 1.510(c). This court, in applying the Florida Supreme Court binding precedent as espoused in Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994) and Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007), as well as reviewing the

Calla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007), as well as reviewing the application and analysis of those cases in Wolfe v. Foreman, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1540 (July 17, 2013), correctly concluded that all actions occurring during the course of a judicial proceeding, so long as the

action against Epstein. The Court, in applying the Florida Supreme Court binding precedent as espoused in Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994) and Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007), as well as reviewing the